Free will and the NAP

[DGB]

Everything you said except stuff related to "outside forces" was awesome: The Determobot, the implications of messing up on what constitutes "aggression", the physics of the brain.  Everything except on Dec. 15th with "this guy thinks emotions are external to us".  I did not see that as the intent.  You can say "the reaction occurs inside our heads", but there is influence from food eaten, people talking, sunlight, etc.  You decided what constitutes "reaction".  It is another toxic word because physicists say "action and reaction", but it is often very much just an opinion which is which.  There is recoil from a gun, but bullet and gun recoil from each other.  Basketballs in the air pull "up" the Earth with force equal to the force the basketball is pulled down.  And I would say, if the word emotion is used to include its causes and effects, that is not the same how you understood it because that does not seem to divorce emotion from the brain.  Maybe you did understand it all and you can set me straight.

This is what the guy said:"But if kicking a ball into someone's face is just a reaction to my surroundings, memories, feelings and senses, then I have as much will as the ball, just doing what I'm doing because of outside forces - no more no less."He uses the concept "I'm", he refers to himself. He calls memories, feelings, and senses "outside forces", I assume he's saying, outside of "I'm", outside of himself.I asked him to explain where emotions come from if not within our brains and he responded with a question that was irrelevant. I didn't understand his position so I questioned him on it.I understand that our emotions desires, etc can be influenced by outside sources, he pointed that out and I explained I did not see the contradiction. The sun burns my skin, but my skin is still a part of my body. The suns influence on my skin doesn't make my skin an outside influence?I don't think it is constructive to talk about a concept of "I", then to talk about things which make up an individual as outside of "I", why talk about the self then externalize memories, desires, emotions, etc? 

[Kawlinz]

I didn't call them outside forces. I see how my sentence - which also included environment - was misleading. I included surroundings (external) with feelings (internal) and expected you to know what i was talking about somehow.

 

The point I was making was that the feelings, emotions, memories etc are only there because of some outside environment that we have no control over. they're always directly proportional to the outside influences. saying 'my brain made me do x' kind of makes me wanna ask the question "well, why did the brain do that?" well, it must have been in reaction to something.

 

saying we possess will when we act is like saying a ball has will when it gets kicked. I know we call it will, but it's just a bad definition. will includes control and deliberation, neither of which exist if everything is a casual reaction.

 

does that make more sense as to why I was using "outside forces"?

[HasMat]

Has anyone looked at probabilistic determinism?

 

classical determinism states that everything is linked in one continuous cause and effect chain from a single first cause.

 

Probabilistic determinism is the idea that causality is only probabilistic not 100% deterministic. on a macro scale everything seems to have absolute certainty, but on the quantum scale the uncertainty is greatly magnified.

 

Even the smallest amount of indeterminism is enough for free choice to be possible without a metaphysical non-explanation.

who owns this indeterminism?

 

Ownership is key. If its just random background radiation of the universe it has no meaningful connection to a self. A 'life' with as much indeterminism as a quantum particle is the sum of its forces, nothing more, with no magic.

 

Are you really gonna argue a self with as much randomness as inanimate matter is exercising free will and not merely a product of chance, just like everything else? what quality of randomness does a self have that a corpse doesnt? do natural laws suspend?

 

the entire argument REVOLVES around selfhood and its personal causation giving the known universe the middlefinger IN A WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT INANIMATE MATTER DOES.

 

either it gives the universe the bird, or it dutifully follows known laws. the randomness of basic matter provides no discriminating cover for selfs to hide a free-will.

 

you need something that violates known law (causation) and operates outside the universe. it must be distinguishable from 'reality' as we know it. there is no way around it being metaphysical.

 

either metaphysical or no free-will. there is no other option.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This got pretty muddled, my fault, I see why you thought I was making said claim, sorry about that. I'm going to try and make my posts more to the point.

 

My main issue is that I don't understand free will. You say:"We are not arguing that science has demonstrated it. We're agnostic but we have philosophical arguments that argue that free-will is necessary and that without it you fall into contradiction. As some assumption is required in order to proceed then we must choose the logically consistent one."My problem is I don't see this idea of free will as logically consistent, because I don't know what it is. You even say you don't know what it is.I think our brains are governed by the laws of physics, if they're not, how do they work?I understand the point you're making about moral responsibility but I'm not sure given what you have provided me how your concept of free will justifies moral responsibility.If our actions/thoughts are the result of cause and effect, then you say they aren't really our choices (we have no choice) so there is no moral responsibility.So we need free will, but we don't know what free will is or how it works.I see a few possibilities for what free will is:a) Actions that happen for no reason (random / outside causation)b) Actions that happen because of a mechanism we don't know anything aboutc) OtherA, and B cannot be justifiably held morally responsible, surely you need to understand your behavior to be held responsible?So what am I missing?If the NAP cannot be valid without free will, I think it's important we know what it is.. I can't even figure out what it NEEDS to be, in order to make the NAP valid (given your criticisms of determinism that is).Our ability to compare our opinions and beliefs to ideal and universal standards is awesome but I don't know what it has to do with free will.

Just because you do not know "what it is" does not mean it's logically inconsistent. You have to show logical inconsistency. 

You imply I'm arguing that our brains are somehow outside the "laws of physics". I constantly hear determinists insinuate that my view is supernatural.  What "law" of physics does free-will violate? Do you know what "laws of physics" are? Please provide a link to the inviolable law of physics that free-will breaks.

If you understand my point about moral responsibility then how can you say you're not sure how free-will justifies moral responsibility. What does "justify moral responsibility" mean? That's ambiguous because "justify" could be used in several different senses; to justify the existence of moral responsibility or the validity of it or the usefulness of it and so on.

 

Under determinism, no agent can have any control over their actions. Without control over one's actions one cannot have moral responsibility. Therefore, under determinism one cannot have moral responsibility for any action. 

That seems pretty clear.

The rest of your post is more of you telling me you just don't get it. I've already made the arguments. 

[Ahren]

If determinism is true can there be a choice? Can a person consciously decide between A and B based on reason and evidence?

[RestoringGuy]

The point I was making was that the feelings, emotions, memories etc are only there because of some outside environment that we have no control over. they're always directly proportional to the outside influences. saying 'my brain made me do x' kind of makes me wanna ask the question "well, why did the brain do that?" well, it must have been in reaction to something.

 

saying we possess will when we act is like saying a ball has will when it gets kicked. I know we call it will, but it's just a bad definition. will includes control and deliberation, neither of which exist if everything is a casual reaction.

Brain and outside environment are both made of the same "stuff", matter and energy.  I don't see how you can suggest the environment influences your feelings, but your feelings, etc, cannot influence it given that your muscles,etc. are influenced by feelings and are tied into the environment.  It seems like you are suggesting the brain is the "real" reaction, but responses to your brain (elevated heartbeat, kicking your feet) do not qualify as real reactions.  The are just outside somehow.  Also, internal and external are where you choose draw the line.

[Kawlinz]

Brain and outside environment are both made of the same "stuff", matter and energy.  I don't see how you can suggest the environment influences your feelings, but your feelings, etc, cannot influence it given that your muscles,etc. are influenced by feelings and are tied into the environment.  It seems like you are suggesting the brain is the "real" reaction, but responses to your brain (elevated heartbeat, kicking your feet) do not qualify as real reactions.  The are just outside somehow.  Also, internal and external are where you choose draw the line.

 

That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's funny where people stop when they say X caused me to do it. I'm suggesting, that if you're a determinist, you should really be saying that "the big bang made me do it" or "all the previous forces that act upon my body." Anything else would be arbitrary, wouldn't it?

[RestoringGuy]

I'm saying that it's funny where people stop when they say X caused me to do it. I'm suggesting, that if you're a determinist, you should really be saying that "the big bang made me do it" or "all the previous forces that act upon my body." Anything else would be arbitrary, wouldn't it?

Sorry to misunderstand.  Yes it does seem arbitrary if you are talking about determinism.  But when someone says "X caused me to do it", that refers to causation not necessarily determinism.  In a non-determinist framework, causation can be probabilistic.  By this I mean previous forces can only influence the odds, rather than seeming to determine one particular outcome.I would like to note that the radical free will position is also arbitrary.  If a guy is inside a car, I could say the car acts with free will.  But if you draw a line and say "no only the driver has free will, the car is controlled", one could take it a step further and say "no only the driver's brain has free will, the rest of their body is merely controlled".  Or you could even say just some bits of the frontal part of the brain has free will, not the brain itself.

[Kawlinz]

I think even in a deterministic framework, causation can be probabalisitic. I don't think it dismisses the framework at all. Either way, saying "x caused me to Y"... well, what caused X? And before that? it always go back to the big bang (or before, if that makes sense)

 

 

What does hurt the framework is that no one attempts to share concepts with a car in order for it to get better gas miliage.